General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Betfair said that Cross-matching is a more efficient method of matching customer bets. However, someone said that the cross matching affect them much more than paying Betfair the 60% premium charge on their profit every week. I do not understand. Could you please give me some examples?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 76
|
By:
Probably someone who was botting the markets and picking up pennies when the book went overround/overbroke, Betfair's x matching has made them redundant
|
|
By:
The cross matching doesnt offer best execution so nearly everyone will be worse off. Not everyone is going to face the PC
|
|
By:
The cross matching rips people off, the premium charge rips people off, the cashout feature rips people off, anyone beginning to spot a pattern here
 |
|
By:
You're not happy ?
|
|
By:
Any clearer roadto ?
|
|
By:
Could you please give me some examples?
As above, cross matching means you get matched at the price you ask for, and the matcher of your bet gets the price he asked for. So he could be offering to back unders at 1.5, and you come home drunk and put in an offer to back overs at 2.0 (rather than lay his unders) and you both instantly get matched at your requested prices, resulting in you getting 2.0 when 3.0 was available, and him getting 1.5 when your 2.0 appeared and became available. Betfair pocket the profit from giving you 2.0 instead of the available 3.0, and him 1.5 instead of the available 2.0. I've actually cross matched myself for a guaranteed loss several times because I place so many bets and mistakes happen, and sometimes the cross matching goes on between markets that are related but not on the same page, so are not so obvious. |
|
By:
Trevh,
I believe that's incorrect. If cross matching is switched on, in a market in which one outcome is available to lay at 1.5, anybody who submits a bet attempting to back another outcome in the same market at the price of 2, will get at least part of their stake matched at the price of 3. This assumes that their bet reaches the market whilst the first outcome is still available to lay at 1.5. They would get their entire stake matched at 3 if their stake is equal or lower than half the amount available to lay at 1.5 on the other outcome when their bet reaches the market. I believe that claims of failure to provide best execution partly refer to the situation where cross matching doesn't generate the best corresponding price. For example, if one outcome is available to lay at 1.49, the corresponding price that should be generated by the cross matching bot at which the other outcomes can be backed would be approximately 3.04. On most markets this price increment isn't available and the actual price generated by the cross matching bot is 3. In that situation, if someone attempted to submit a back bet at the price of 2 on the second outcome they would be matched at 3, subject to the provisions above. By the term corresponding price, I do not mean correct price. If 1.49 is the correct price on selection 1 to win, in a market with more than 2 possible outcomes, 3.04 would only be the correct price on any of the other outcomes if all but one of those other outcomes were now impossible. This is another way in which cross matching can generate a gain for the operator. Despite this, I believe that the use of cross matching is to the advantage of the majority of customers. |
|
By:
I can't see how it's bad for the customer at all. They get a bet matched that they asked for that otherwise wouldn't have got matched.
|
|
By:
If they actually wanted a more efficient system of matching bets they would use the same system as the 1% site.
|
|
By:
How does that work?
|
|
By:
Say we have Federer vs Nadal and want to bet Nadal at +102 (2.02 in English odds), we ask to bet Nadal at +102, we ask to bet Federer at +108 (2.08). We've undercut the current prices.
site would read Federer -102 -103 -104 Nadal -108 -109 -110 (or in European odds) Federer 1.98 1.97 1.96 Nadal 1.925 1.917 1.909 It's as simple as always backing, which eliminates a lot of the rubbish. On multi runner events you just bet something to win or something to lose. The key being if your price is available, then you take it, if not it goes to the front of the queue. There's no need for two individual lines, even though it can be displayed as such. Always found it a far better system (as is their commission system. Sadly WSEX ran it into the ground by trying to seed it themselves and had to sell it to a European firm... which for a US facing site is pretty messy) |
|
By:
I've never really seen the cashout facility discussed. Does that benefit the company or its customers?
|
|
By:
The answer seems to be neither silverback!
It doesn't work particularly well, so the customer doesn't get the best deal, it also reduces commission paid, so doesn't benefit Betfair! |
|
By:
Ah, I see Lori. I remember wondering why bf didn't do this when I first stared on here!
|
|
By:
The cross matcher is a much bigger deal than the PC for me. The key point about it is not the effect it has on the market at any given instant but the overall effect on the way the market moves. The XM acts against large price swings and over-reactions, particularly in running, thus reducing the points at which value is available. This effects everyone whether or not they're using bots.
Put simply, value is always available at the peaks and troughs on the price graph for a given runner, with the XM switched on the peaks aren't as high and the troughs aren't as low for any individual runner. This is because every time the mugs get carried away over-backing something (for example) all their dumb a$s clicks get matched against other runners rather than pushing the price of the selection they're trying to back right down to good lay value - where anyone shrewd is waiting to take their money. This is the purpose of the XM, to keep the market closer to "true" value (where half of all bets at 2 win etc). That's good if you're a mug, but if you win (or if you ever hope to win) then it reduces your opportunities dramatically. That's why it's bad for me, but I can see why BF like it, it regulates the market and generates them far more comm than would otherwise be the case. |
|
By:
I believe that's incorrect. If cross matching is switched on, in a market in which one outcome is available to lay at 1.5, anybody who submits a bet attempting to back another outcome in the same market at the price of 2, will get at least part of their stake matched at the price of 3.
When I have stupidly cross matched myself (funny how BF let you do that, which registers on the price graphs, but not back your own lay), I always get exactly the prices I have asked for on both matched bets, leaving me with quite a substantial guaranteed loss, and BF a substantial guaranteed profit. |
|
By:
Put simply, value is always available at the peaks and troughs on the price graph for a given runner, with the XM switched on the peaks aren't as high and the troughs aren't as low for any individual runner. This is because every time the mugs get carried away over-backing something (for example) all their dumb a$s clicks get matched against other runners rather than pushing the price of the selection they're trying to back right down to good lay value - where anyone shrewd is waiting to take their money. This is the purpose of the XM, to keep the market closer to "true" value (where half of all bets at 2 win etc). That's good if you're a mug, but if you win (or if you ever hope to win) then it reduces your opportunities dramatically.
......................... No it's not good for the "mug" Firstly, the XM doesnt offer "best execution" so he get's the price he asked for instead of the price his bet is matched against. Best case scenario is he's level. Secondly, if it was a typing mistake, he hasnt got the chance to cancel that part of the bet that would have been unmatched. Thirdly, if it wasn't a typing mistake, but the punter realised he'd took too short a price when he sees the percentages go overbroke, assuming it was in running, he'd have time to cancel it and resubmit the bet at a better price. |
|
By:
Firstly, the XM doesnt offer "best execution" so he get's the price he asked for instead of the price his bet is matched against.
Don't think that's the case CB. Wasn't that what everyone was complaining about when it was first introduced and they backed down on it such that the only skim they get is due to matching at the nearest odds (in bf's favour) on the increment ladder. As you point out, they additionally benefit from trapping. |
|
By:
Another point I'd like to make is that suppose there is a 2 runner race where I can lay £200 on option A at 1.86 and £800 is available to back at 2.14 on option B. Laying option A is marginally the better deal but since I want to bet more than £200 I bet both so I simultaneouly lay A and back B.
In practice, every time I have done the bets simultaneously with the intention of taking note of whether I've got matched at the best price I have found I have always got matched at the slightly worse price, so the XM is matching me ahead of the actual submitted bet by the counter party when bets are placed simultaneously |
|
By:
Don't think that's the case CB. Wasn't that what everyone was complaining about when it was first introduced and they backed down on it such that the only skim they get is due to matching at the nearest odds (in bf's favour) on the increment ladder. As you point out, they additionally benefit from trapping.
|
|
By:
I wish people would stop calling it cross matching, it's the bf "skimbot" [>o]
|
|
By:
Feck is it not the case that if I bet horse A in a 3 runner race at 2 and at that point in time you can lay horse B at 3 and horse C at 4 so that my bet at 2 can be fully matched, my bet will be matched at 2? That has always been my understanding.
The nearest odds on that represent this on the increment ladder is 2.38 |
|
By:
CB, my understanding is that given the 2 lays showing the cross matcher would display around 2.4 for A before you had even submitted your bet. The way you described it was the way they originally intended doing it but backed down (you wonder why given subsequent events) after everyone made a fuss.
|
|
By:
Any change of luck since we last spoke Feck? No point in asking me, evertime I pull ahead I seem to be hit with some desperate rides at the moment. Down a good few quid and sometimes I feel like I'm playing roulette with the zero expanded by an inch.
|
|
By:
Ah yes you are right Feck. It's all coming back to me now
|
|
By:
Trevh,
I believe that what you described above can now only occur if cross matching is switched off in the relevant market or another party takes your first bet prior to the your second bet reaching the market. I have tested this by backing outcome A at 2 and outcome B at 1.5 simultaneously in a two outcome market in which cross matching is currently switched on (the current available back prices on both outcomes being lower). The result was that both bets were matched at 2 and my net position in the market is £0. |
|
By:
*zero slot.
|
|
By:
What happens & who gets the money when in Lori's example match Federer - Nadal (in-play) Federer is trading around 1.7 and matching bot is offering on Nadal around 2.4. Suddenly matching bot goes off like it has been doing for some time now and suddenly there are two different people
other wanting to back Fed with 10K at 1.7 and the other punter wanting to back Nadal with 10K at 1.7. You can lay both of those bets if you are fast enough and bot usually goes off in few minutes periods, but when it comes back in who's deep pockets does the money go? |
|
By:
CLYDEBANK29 Joined: 10 Jan 02
Replies: 1745 14 Jul 11 20:42 The cross matching doesnt offer best execution so nearly everyone will be worse off. --------- disagree. one positive thing it does is protect people from some trap bets and fat-finger fvckups in illiquid markets. I'm pretty sure that just that's saved me much more than it's cost me, so I'm in favour. though I'd be more in favour with best ex. sorry to say the unsayable. |
|
By:
thank you for the input, from what Trevh said "So he could be offering to back unders at 1.5, and you come home drunk and put in an offer to back overs at 2.0 (rather than lay his unders) and you both instantly get matched at your requested prices, resulting in you getting 2.0 when 3.0 was available, and him getting 1.5 when your 2.0 appeared and became available. Betfair pocket the profit from giving you 2.0 instead of the available 3.0, and him 1.5 instead of the available 2.0."
In this way, it appears to me that Betfair takes advantage of the Cross Matching and generate money with no risk. Am I right? |
|
By:
As I and others have indicated, Trevh's comments are incorrect.
Feel free to confirm this, at your own risk, in any market in which cross matching is operational. I tested it on the QPR v Wigan Season Match Bet market. |
|
By:
It is certainly correct that betfair can make huge profits from it at zero risk.
I put up a request to back C at 3.0 in a 3 outcome event. Then I see instantly that A can now be backed at 1.5. Obviously if someone does so, Betfair have a fantastic risk free position on B. Who benefits from this except Betfair please? |
|
By:
you do, if you get matched at a value price and wouldn't have done otherwise.
|
|
By:
That's correct Turtleshead but it's entirely different to Trevh's assertions. I commented on that in paragraph three of my first post on this thread.
If roadto2010wc read the entire thread as opposed to skim reading selected posts he may gain a better understanding of how cross matching actually works. |
|
By:
Not really viva, it's pretty likely that someone would have done so anyway. And there is an asumption there that I have requested a value price, which many or may not be correct. But in any case, the major loser from the above is the person who tried to back at 1.5, they may well be inexperienced / drunk / careless etc. They will lose their money in very rapid time and may not return.
The point I am making is that betfair make huge risk free margins on these bets at the expense of their customers. Whatever happened to person v person |
|
By:
stewarty, I continue to be plagued by seconds. Sue Me being the latest 5 figure one. I'm still up but this is a killer run.
|
|
By:
if you put the price up, we can take it for the purposes of the discussion that it's value.
you can't assume that it would have got matched anyway. the 1.5 backer didn't match it when they could have, and in many markets a layer may well not come along. even if they do, you will have to wait longer - and time itself has a value in this equation. as for the drunk, careless and clueless - the alternative may well have been them backing a speculative lay at 1.02, in which case they lose their money much more quickly. none of which is to say that BF don't also benefit. but it's wrong to say that only they benefit. |
|
By:
Feck, I can't imagine how much you're giving this lot in commission, even at 2%. As for providing liquidity........
And if you hit the 40% charge, the parasites on here will look like goldfish compared to these sharks. |
|
By:
Well thanks for the compliment, but I have been known to put up bets which weren't value (whisper it quietly
 )Okay, I take your points on board, and will amend my statement to say that the overwhelming beneficiary will be betfair. And the overwhelming loser will be the 1.5 backer, maybe on occasions it will help me also. I think that is fair. |